This article was nominated for deletion on 7 May 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Paranormal Mid‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted on 19 November 2018 by reviewer L293D ( talk · contribs).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Susan Gerbic (13 January 2023). "Behold the Power of Wikipedia". Skeptical Inquirer.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo My name is not Alexander Hamilton ( talk) 22:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit must be restored according to policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555

Currently in section Luis_Elizondo#Office_of_the_Under_Secretary_of_Defense_for_Intelligence:

From 2008 until his resignation in 2017, Elizondo claimed to work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon.

Change that to:

From 2008 until his resignation in 2017, Elizondo worked with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon.

There are already several confused Wikipedians who are conflating topics. My edit request is for this EXTREMELY specific granular change. The Pentagon unambiguously confirmed Elizondo's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence involvement.

Rationale and policy supporting that NO consensus is required for this change

That explicit change should be restored. There is no disputing whatsoever that subject worked at and/or for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon. The same source quotes a DOD spokesperson who says so, and then that same source is incredibly cited to say that the subject "claimed" to have worked there. So Elizondo "claimed" to work somewhere where the DOD confirmed he worked there... why are we saying "claimed" and presenting this WP:BLP subject as a liar? If you have a Wikipedia article about you and say, "I worked for Wikpedia," and then Wikipedia posts a statement saying you did in fact work for Wikipedia... is it appropriate for Wikipedia to put any conditional on the fact you worked there?

Per Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Planning_a_request:

Consensus isn't needed if a change is not controversial. Uncontroversial changes don't require sourcing, such as correcting typographical errors or disambiguating links. If this is the case, you don't need to establish consensus, but instead propose the change as stated above.

There is nothing in any universe controversial about saying Elizondo worked there as my "diff" link here changed. To dispute that is to insert non-neutral bias and violates WP:BLP. Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged, which apparently has binding authority on anyone reading these words:

...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

No actual dispute exists anywhere whether or not Elizondo worked at or for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon. No legitimate source says he "claimed to", and any source would be fringe/have no standing to outrank the Pentagon's own public human resources statement. The Pentagon says he did--and they did--then that as a primary source supersedes literally everything on that topic.

Please restore what is in that edit. As this is a BLP violation and indisputable consensus is NOT required per binding authoritative policy. My name is not Alexander Hamilton ( talk) 23:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, it appears the source cited supports the statement that Elizondo worked for Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. The same source however makes it very clear that Elizondo's claim to have been a Director for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, as asserted in other parts of your recent extensive edits [1] (see infobox) is very much open to question. Accordingly, I'd be a little wary of throwing around claims of WP:BLP violations willy-nilly. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Please don't whataboutism? My requested change is extremely precise and has nothing to do with AATIP. My name is not Alexander Hamilton ( talk) 00:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

As to all my other edits, I intend to multiply source every single one into absolute BLP compliance over time. I am happy to document this to any painful level of detail and scrutiny required. I enjoy precision and technicality. My name is not Alexander Hamilton ( talk) 00:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

OK, now we've confirmed that your mass edit wasn't all WP:BLP compliant, by your own admission, how about you drop the hostile tone? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Is it not understandable for me to be testy given my initial attempts to work here were met with overt personal attacks and hostility? I just assumed everyone was frosty given my reception and that was how it works. If that's not the case, that's nice. The 'edit warrior' who basically told me fuck off was a charming non-human biologic.

There was no "mass edit". I performed dozens of slow, I thought carefully documented edits. If I got one of 80 or so slow motion granular edits wrong--I'll redo every single one with a Starlink-level chain of references behind every sentence. My name is not Alexander Hamilton ( talk) 00:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• The Washington Post says unambiguously that Elizondo was head of AATIP and here's the link. Jusdafax ( talk) 00:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I see that a WaPo correspondent interviewed him for a podcast. In the podcast Elizondo says that the program is still secret. So how did the interviewer confirm that he was director? Did they file FOIA? They don't explain it and I think this is a big enough deal that we deserve some explanation for how they proceeded with fact checking. jps ( talk) 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Is it standard for Wikipedia to challenge to a granular level ALL sources for small details about BLP subjects, like where they worked? If we have five major London newspapers who all say Mr. Smithly Smith of Somewherebury worked for MI:5 from 1980-1999 as a classified employee based on his own remarks, but none show their homework in validating that, can we modify Smithly Smith from "worked for MI:5" to "claimed to work for MI:5"?

I want to understand on what grounds it is acceptable under Wikipedia policy, and which policy, to dispute otherwise reliable sources if they don't outright explain their fact checking on some small particular piece of a large article. My name is not Alexander Hamilton ( talk) 00:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I would be just as careful using Mr. Smithy Smith's words that he worked for MI-5. If he said he graduated from XYZ University and it seemed reasonable then we wouldn't be so concerned about the claim. But Elizondo and your fictional Smithy Smith are talking about a job that is entirely different, super secret and the agency that they say they work for can't validate it. We can use "claimed". You claim that you are not Alexander Hamilton, do you have some way we can verify that? Why is removing "claimed" so important to you? Sgerbic ( talk) 01:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh I just noticed ... you are blocked. Opps! Sgerbic ( talk) 01:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• So WaPo, a WP:RS and their fact checking that Elizondo was Director of AATIP is questioned, noted. A brief Google search shows the following backup, all mainstream Wikipedia reliable sources:

1) 60 Minutes Buried away in the Pentagon, AATIP was part of a $22 million program sponsored by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to investigate UFOs. When Elizondo took over in 2010 he focused on the national security implications of unidentified aerial phenomena documented by U.S. service members.

2) Harvard University Elizondo is a former counterintelligence special agent and the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). He served in the U.S. Army in intelligence for twenty years

3) Politico According to a Pentagon official, the AATIP program was ended “in the 2012 time frame,” but it has recently attracted attention because of the resignation in early October of Luis Elizondo, the career intelligence officer who ran the initiative.

4) The Hollywood Reporter "The former head of the U.S. government’s secretive UFO program" in the subtitle, and "In 2008, he was asked to be part of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a $22 million program sponsored by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to study UFOs. In 2010, he was made director of the program."

I submit that these reliable sources make a strong case indeed, and according to them Elizondo was AATIP Director. Jusdafax ( talk) 01:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think the issue here is that the claim is that this was a secret program that is still secret, no? Most of these sources are sourcing their information from Elizondo himself as far as I can tell. Doubt has been cast that this story is accurate and the sources themselves do not seem to have offered much in the way of explanation for how any of this is confirmed beyond interview. Generally, I would accept such things, but seeing that there are questions raised as to whether and how AATIP actually worked, it does not seem to me that this is a justified WP:ASSERTion. Threading this needle is difficult, indeed, but Wikipedia should not just pretend Greenstreet's accusations do not exist even if we will not be including them in the article. There are ways to be delicate and careful with what information we include and what we don't and, importantly, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. jps ( talk) 01:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This has now changed with regards to Harry Reid's confirmation of position as noted in the article. This should surely shift the NPOV stance to one that on the balance of probabilities at least should fairly weigh the statement that Luis was the director (and allow for the quoting of the sources saying this) - as well as fairly weighting the "both reports and Pentagon officials" statement to better reflect something that seems far less challenged than this article makes it appear. 77.102.202.71 ( talk) 14:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This should surely shift the NPOV stance. No. Firstly, being professional politicians, United States Senators are hardly reliable sources for...well, pretty much anything. That Robert Bigelow was a close associate of Reid certainly does not improve the latter's credibility, especially with regards to fringe topics like UFOs. Secondly, if any editor can find reliable, secondary sources (per WP:RS, WP:FRIND, etc.) that are independent of Elizondo's own claims in interviews, then please present them. Elizondo first claimed to be the Director (capital D) in 2017. If he truly was the Director, by now there should be many such sources. So where are they? Thirdly, the lede includes two reliable sources that question Elizondo's claim, with the Washington Spectator source ( here) presenting a particularly compelling and thorough analysis (see the sidebar at the bottom of the article). At best, the reliable sources indicate that Elizondo's claim is suspect. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This article Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program states that Harry Reid was the one responsible for AAWSAP and also the AATIP. As he was the one responsible, surely, his statement of Elizondo's position should carry more weight than "general United States Senators" 77.102.202.71 ( talk) 15:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This will be my final response to this thread. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its policies and guidelines require us to only include content derived from reliable sources (please read the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT, and especially its subsection WP:PROMO, and also the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV, particularly its subsection WP:WIKIVOICE). Elizondo's claim has been questioned by multiple, independent, secondary sources, but it has not received a similar level of support from such sources. Until and unless it does, his claim(s), if they are to be included at all, can only be presented as his claims. Nothing more. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

"as his claims. Nothing more" - This statement is patently false, as demonstrated by the Harry Reid document referenced directly in this article. Further, as stated, Harry Reid appears to be responsible for the creation of the AATIP, and so would be a contextually valuable source of information on this topic. 77.102.202.71 ( talk) 11:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

further - https://twitter.com/g_knapp/status/1135986135602290688 based on this partially unredacted document from Knapp (as referenced in this blackvault article https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/harry-reid-and-his-aatip-letter-the-mystery-deepens/) it clearly seems that Harry Reid had always intended Luis Elizondo to be a part of the AATIP program that he was responsible for. So, so this would be an additional source to add weight to the claim. 77.102.202.71 ( talk) 13:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, n.b., I would appreciate it if Wikipedia(ns) stopped attributing Avi Loeb's Galileo Project to Harvard University as if it is being sponsored by the institution. It is not. It is a pet project of one astrophysicist who does not currently enjoy the support of most of his community for his antics. jps ( talk) 02:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Do we really need to have that dispute tag? They are so annoying right in the face of the person reading the page and they are never specific enough for people to understand what is the problem. They would have to read though the talk page to possible understand and even still they aren't sure the dispute is about what is on the talk page. I don't want to remove something that someone else seems confident about. Even I'm not sure that the dispute is about the conversation over the word "claimed" or if it's about something else. Sgerbic ( talk) 04:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Seeing as how the person who added the tag is now blocked indefinitely and I don't really see a justification here on the talkpage for the tag, I think removing it is fine. If someone knows exactly what sources are being misrepresented in the text, feel free to let us know here and we can try to fix them, but I'm guessing that this is something more like a WP:POINT disruption rather than a good faith identification of a sourcing dispute. jps ( talk) 10:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: Given the original requester is now blocked, I'm going to set this to answered. Anyone who thinks there is still merit to the exact change requested may feel free to reactivate this. Izno ( talk) 21:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Now that the disruption has settled (and putting aside the "was he or wasn't he AATIP director" issue for the moment) I've been looking at how the article could be improved. Elizondo has expressed a number of fringe views in the media, so I don't think there's any dispute that some critical analysis is needed to temper the extraordinary and WP:SENSATIONAL WP:FRINGE claims - e.g. aliens, UFOs, government conspiracies, other dimensional beings, etc.

The present criticism section is a mixed bag. Colavito, Kloor, and Lewis-Kraus might be retained and improved. In my opinion, the Helene Cooper piece is more about Cooper's feelings (I trust him, I don't trust him, oh I just don't know) than analysis of Elizondo's claims, e.g. he likes to sit with his back to a wall is a cute observation, but this kind of stuff doesn't add anything to his bio. There may be a place outside of the criticism section for a detail or two from the Cooper interview, but I'm not sure where.

Here's some sources that could be used for actual critical analysis [2], [3], [4], [5]

And of course we should mention he's landed a big book deal: [6]. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Why is his work with AATIP being questioned? The latter from Harry Reid confirming not only his involvement but his involvement at a leadership level within AATIP should superseded both the Intercept article and the Pentagon. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 15:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This has also been confusing to me as well. There is evidence that has been chosen to be ignored, we should work to fix this. Atreon ( talk) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Further the partially unredacted source in the debate above - https://twitter.com/g_knapp/status/1135986135602290688 https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/harry-reid-and-his-aatip-letter-the-mystery-deepens/ and you have multiple sources all confirming this, which is very much different to being a single "claim". Webmaster2981 ( talk) 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Neither of these come even close to what we would use as sources. See WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

How about this one: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111/ Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo. But she could not say how long he was in charge of it and declined to answer detailed questions about the office or its work, citing concerns about the closely held nature of the program. Webmaster2981 ( talk) 13:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I realize this has been argued to death above, but I dont think that argument was done in good faith. I also think at this point this is a WP:BLP issue as the overwhelming majority of all reliable sources (including the form Senate Majority leader who started the program) state Elizondo was the Director of AATIP but the article is using one source to claim otherwise. Im going to take this over to the BLP board. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Elizondo was born in Texas not Florida. He has tried to fix this issue but your moronic group that is going around making pages and "fixing" things you don't like on everything you feel is pseudoscience won't let it happen. You guys don't know everything. You are not always right. You took pictures at the mall for god's sake. Capstonecomplaints ( talk) 20:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source cited in the article says he was born in Miami. You'll need to provide a reliable source that supports that he was born in Texas. Schazjmd  (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

It would be nice to be able to accept good faith but this new editor’s post does certainly make them look like another WP:MEATPUPPET coming here from the same site or sites as the others. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Most likely, but letting them goad me into responding in kind would be playing their game, so.... Schazjmd  (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely.. Doug Weller talk 21:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

It ilterally says in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune article cited in the section Born in Miami, Luis Elizondo IV moved to Sarasota around 1975. That’s when his father, Luis Elizondo III, a food and beverage manager, helped open the Hyatt hotel in Sarasota.. It's not something that Wikipedia editors randomly made up. If you can find sources that contract this please cite them. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Elizondo was born in Texas not Florida.

We at Wikipedia are aware that some people are saying Elizondo was born in Texas. This is why the infobox notes that his birthplace "needs independent confirmation". We have made a major effort to look for reliable sources saying that Elizondo was born in Texas, but our search has turned up nothing. If you can find a reliable souce that we've overlooked, we'd be happy to try to update the article to reflect the most accurate sources. Feoffer ( talk) 10:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The Herald-Tribune first published on January 3, 2021 by Billy Cox has updated their article to show that Elizondo was born in Texas but the family moved to Sarasota around 1975. Sgerbic ( talk) 03:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done Okay, @ Capstonecomplaints: looks like this issue has been successfully addressed. Anyone in communication with the subject of this article, or his supporters, please relay my sincere truth that we as a project meant absolutely no disrespect to the subject and I'm happy this got solved. Thanks to everyone who helped us improve this article, especially whoever got Herald-Tribune to issue a correction! Feoffer ( talk) 09:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply